I've studied the film industry, both academically and informally, for 25 years and extensively written about it for the last five years. My outlets for film criticism, box office commentary, and film-skewing scholarship have included The Huffington Post, Salon, and Film Threat. Follow me at @ScottMendelson.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

'Amazing Spider-Man 2' And Its Self-Sabotaging Gwen Stacy Plot Twist

Consider this a “Spoiler Warning” for The Amazing Spider-Man 2. After the next couple sentences, which I am intentionally padding for the sake of the social network feed, I will be discussing, in detail, a couple major plot turns in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. For those who don’t know and don’t want to know, make haste in 3… 2… 1…

The good news is that no one cheered. I’ve written before of my concern that the inevitable death of Gwen Stacy in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (from the Sony Corporation) would bring cheers from the audience, as hardcore fans would applaud the somewhat iconic story turn. They didn’t cheer. Even with painfully obvious foreshadowing starting with Emma Stone’s “I could die at any moment!” high school graduation speech, it stands to reason that the vast majority of general audience members who saw the film this weekend were actually surprised when Spider-Man tried but failed to save his girlfriend from said death plunge inside a clock tower. But in terms of killing off Peter Parker’s girlfriend to mimic a story that was groundbreaking 41 years ago, Marc Webb, Emma Stone, and company spent so much time being excited that they could that they didn’t stop to wonder whether they should.

I made a point not to discuss said plot turn in my initial review, both because it was a massive spoiler and because it was a plot turn that I disapproved of on principle, and thus it would be unfair to be too hard on a film offering what many fans in fact wanted to see in one form or another. Truth be told, it was a ripping action climax, with Spidey and newly established Green Goblin doing swift and brutal combat as Gwen kept falling in and out of mortal peril. The moment offered the best kind of suspense, which is the horror of knowing how a moment is going to play out even while hoping that things go differently. But the adherence to comics dogma opens up a gigantic can of worms for upcoming Amazing Spider-Man films, harming the would-be appeal of future installments by turning its most popular character into a “woman in refrigerator.”

The phrase “woman in refrigerator”, coined by future comic book writer Gail Simone 1999, referred to the tendency of comic books to do harm upon the girlfriends, wives, or female siblings of a male hero for the sole purpose of making the hero feel bad and/or seek vengeance. It was named after an incident in a 1994 Green Lantern comic where Kyle Rayner’s girlfriend was murdered and stuffed in a refrigerator. It soon became the de-facto phrase for the pattern in comic books by which the female supporting character in a male-centric title would be raped, murdered, assaulted and/or de-powered so that the male here could “have a sad.” And that’s really all the death of Ms. Stacy is for this second Spider-Man film. Emma Stone gave us a rather amusing and engaging female character, the filmmakers did their best to sell the notion that she was her own character with her own agency, then she got chucked down a clock tower so that Peter could feel bad.

Never mind the young woman who was on her way to Oxford, a perfect example of how to realistically write out a major character without having to resort to a now-cliched “shocking death”. Never mind the fact that Gwen helped Spidey save the day from Electro’s blackout and then was immediately murdered as de-facto punishment for her heroic pluck. The most important thing about Gwen Stacy will be that she died. Her death only matters in how it affects the male superhero and how he grows or changes as a result. Even as the somewhat fantastically perfect girlfriend, her life was meaningless save how her murder affected Peter and established the Green Goblin as an arch-villain for The Amazing Spider-Man 3. Filmmakers like to talk up the allegedly positive qualities of the hero’s girlfriend as an excuse for not having female superheroes, but in the end Gwen lived only to die violently.

The “Woman In Refrigerator” trope is a constant presence in mainstream entertainment, even in entertainment I would classify as “really good.” It’s how 24 chose to end its first and last seasons. The Blacklist recently dispatched of a supporting character’s estranged wife just a few episodes after introducing her. Lost killed off two major female characters in season 2 purely to make their respective island boyfriends feel bad. I love Chris Nolan films as much as the next critic, but Memento, The Prestige, and Inception eventually revolved around the violent death of a female character solely so that the hero could be tormented by said violence. The sheer number of films that start or end with a male hero traumatized over the recent death of his wife and/or kids is too numerous to count (Dante’s Peak, Law-Abiding Citizen, Casino Royale, End of Days, Lethal Weapon, just to name a few). I don’t accuse Marc Webb and company of any ill-intent, and I defend on principle their rights as artists to tell any story they choose, but what was groundbreaking 41 years ago is not just cliched but indicative of a cultural issue, in terms of how females are utilized and valued in pop entertainment.

But even if you’re not bothered on a broader cultural sense about the commonplace treatment of female characters as injured/raped/murdered props in the male-centric narratives of mainstream entertainment, or you think I’m picking on Amazing Spider-Man 2 in a way that I didn’t pick on, for example, The Dark Knight, the implications for this franchise are specific and problematic. Thanks to the violent murder of Gwen Stacy, the third Amazing Spider-Man is left without the very thing that audiences and critics claim to love most about the first two films. Even those who didn’t like either of the films will tell you that they enjoyed the quirky romantic banter between real-life couple Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Stone is dead, which means that we won’t get that key component the next time around.

There is a reason why Han Solo didn’t stay frozen in Return of the Jedi,why Jack Sparrow eventually came back in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, or why Optimus Prime didn’t stay dead in Revenge of the Fallen. You don’t make a sequel by taking away the very thing the audience came to see. And this film was all about setting up future sequels. With Gwen now deceased, the third film will find a new replacement girlfriend for Peter (because nothing takes the mind off your murdered ex like bumping into your hot red head neighbor who calls you “tiger”) and/or put even more emphasis on its villains, which is the one thing most everybody agreed was most problematic. Few moviegoers walking out of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 were excited about the prospect of seeing more of the Green Goblin, more of the Rhino, a resurrection for Electro and/or a return of the Lizard.

Sony'sSony's obsessive focus on crafting a kind of “universe” around the various Spidey foes is both the core narrative flaw of this sequel (Peter had no real arc) and the likely path for a third film. The choice to write out Emma Stone was (to my knowledge) an artistic one as opposed to a corporate one. But the gaping hole left in her absence allows future installments to further set up what Sony desperately wants to be the end game for this franchise, a big “Sinister Six” smack down. The problem is that no one particularly likes the villains in this specific franchise. They like the hero and they like the hero’s plucky girlfriend. But said girlfriend just bit the dust, which means that the third Amazing Spider-Man movie, which in turn follows two installments that were somewhat liked or tolerated without being loved, will enter theaters in June 2016 with less of what you liked and more of what you disliked.

The fact that Amazing Spider-Man 2 made $369 million in 19 days of worldwide play with no buzz shows how potent the Spider-Man character still is. But Sony and company just played their trump card, offering the iconic “death of Gwen Stacy” scene that many hardcore fans were waiting for ever since the character was announced. And unlike Iron Man 2 or Star Trek Into Darkness, which were also somewhat dispassionately received sequels that made about as much as the original worldwide, there is no would-be Avengers or 50th anniversary to boost interest for the third installment. The Amazing Spider-Man 3 will live or die by the cards it has dealt itself, and, like Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows, it just gave away its trump card. I won’t predict box office doom for Amazing Spider-Man 3, but at some point audiences are going to notice that they aren’t all that crazy about these films.

And on a cultural level, millions of young audience members, male and female alike, just got a profound lesson on the value of female human life in pop-culture entertainment. You can talk all you want creating “strong”, “independent”, female characters who are “strong role models” for young girls in otherwise male-centric entertainments, but if the plot negates those qualities by turning her into a victim, taking away her agency, and/or punishing her for those very qualities, it doesn’t make a bit of difference. Gwen Stacy may be a great character, mostly only because Emma Stone is a great actress. But in the end she’s irrelevant save for the fact that she died.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Gwen dying pissed me off. It didn’t need to happen and was unwarranted in the storyline. Let her go to Oxford and Spidey stay home but visit her and have Spidey make an appearance in England. That would have been interesting. What we need is a “Who Shot J.R.” plot twist where Spidey wakes up and Gwen’s death was nothing more than him having a nightmare.

Film studios rarely have the stones to kill off one of the “good guys”. And when it does happen it is usually very poorly done. When it does happen it should be applauded. To me, killing off Gwen was less about getting Peter to “having a sad”, and more about increasing the Goblin’s stock so that when Spiderman and him finally do have their final showdown, it will have a greater emotional impact. Otherwise he would be just another villain for Spiderman to dispatch. The two most important characters in any superhero movie SHOULD be the hero and villain. Not the hero’s girlfriend as Scott seems to suggest.

Scott also mentioned Transformers. What made the first one so great was the death of Jazz. It gave the audience that “Holy Crap” moment. Superhero movies should have that “Holy Crap” moment.

They killed Gwen Stacy so Peter Parker could be with Mary Jane, like in the comics and cartoons and previous movies. They did what was true to Spider-Man even if it was or wasn’t popular. Gwen going to London makes us hate Peter for falling in love with Mary Jane and not “waiting” for Gwen like any movie romantic is expected to do. So you have to kill her, give Peter time to grieve and move on, and bring in who turns out to be his true love in the franchise.

Who is this clown? Of COURSE they had to kill of G.S., as happened in the comics. There would have rightly been a fan REVOLT had that not happened.

I am so sick of all these feminist writers taking their feminist views and injecting them into all they write. Ugh. Please. The twist was expected by us fans, and was an excellent plot twist for the non-fan. It worked for both groups.

And for the record, there is ZERO obligation for a film to spout or promote your or my worldview when it comes to such things. I for one abhor all the politically correct post-modernist nonsense. I didn’t like that they played her up the way they did. It was rather silly that they wrote her different than the original comic and had her integrally involved in solving the film problem….same thing’s ruined to a large extent the James Bond franchises.

And your definition of “strong” and “independent” are NOT good for women, BTW (true strength is something altogether different). You speak as if there is something wrong with a “male centric” environment. As if, in your fascist mindset, all leading women in a (male centric) film MUST be “strong” and/or “independent.” Utter nonsense. If you would try to insist on that so much, why not lobby for a Wonder Woman film, or another female superhero movie? Why do you feel the need to wish such utter minute control over a male centered genre and mutate it to your particular whim? Ugh.

Well Mr. Mendelson, you’re 95% right. True Spidey fans knew as soon as it was announced that Gwen was the love interest, that she would eventually die. To not kill her off at some point would be like watching “Smallville” all over again, and folks would stop caring sooner or later. For the women that put up with seeing this because of the love story will be disappointed, so you may lose half of the revenue from that demo. However, if they do what I think they’re doing, Amazing Spider-Man 3 will still make money.

Complaining about Gwen’s death is like complaining that Venom hates Spider-Man for rejecting the symbiote and embarrassing Eddie Brock. You can’t fault them for using the source material. You might as well be upset that Gandalf the grey “dies” fighting the Balrog.

there are female superheroes. but females don’t read comics like males do and males want to imagine they are the hero ( a male) not imagine they are a girl. so if girl superhero comics/movies sold well they would make more. these people want to make money, that is it. also if u have a superhero you can’t kill how else do you hurt him? u kill his family and loved ones.

These films aren’t just being seen by young male fanboys who read comics. And frankly the readership of comics is more diverse than male fans like to think anyway — it’s not that females don’t read comics, it’s that most males just ignore the female readers.

Anyway, these movies are not for the handful of people who read comic books. Superhero movies are mainstream, the audiences is overwhelmingly regular viewers who don’t read comic books. Half the population is female, and female viewers are a large portion of the cinema audiences. So these films have to do more than just try to appeal to that segment of young male fanboys who think everything should just worry about appealing to them.

The more these movies broaden their appeal to non-fans, the more successful they are, that’s the simple fact.

The only problem i see with your whole take on this is that it was a constant theme throughout the whole movie that Peter was terrified of Gwen dying just as her father did. Gwen clearly felt that if she was hurt for being near Peter it was worth it and more importantly it was HER choice to make, not Peters. Gwen’s death in the comics so long ago and her death on screen were similar but not the same. The comic Gwen was exactly what the articles writer described and nothing more than a way to make the hero feel bad. Women today are choosing to enter combat along side their male counterparts as frontline soldiers, and that’s basically the choice Gwen made. I’d hate to think that we only send female soldiers out to get killed to make our male soldiers feel bad eh?

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that it sabotaged the movie & franchise by killing her off. NOT killing her off would have brought the reboot movies to a screeching halt. Spider-Man 3 showed us the non-Gwen Stacy and how having that character be alive could ruin a franchise(lets face it, that Gwen Stacy helped ruin that movie as well). In short, if you watch any Spider-Man movie or read any Spider-Man book, and expect it to be a happy love story, you’ll be nothing but disappointed. As for the whole feminist view of them killing off the super hero’s girlfriend for shock value….Last time I checked, Uncle Ben(male) died, Captain Stacy(male) died, Norman Osborn(male) died, Electro(male) died. And I’m not even including the various other male cast members that Electro and the Lizard killed. All of these male characters died and the girlfriend of Spider-Man dies and people freak out and say that it’s degrading to women to kill a female. Grow up people.

Scott, have you ever even read an Amazing Spider-Man comic book? You do know that the death of Gwen Stacy is far from “woman in refrigorator” idea. Spider-Man is not only created by being bitten by a radioactive spider, he is created because of all of the tragedies that befall Peter Paker/Spider-Man.

Did you forget in the first Amazing, Ben Parker and Capt. Stacy both died. You know, two MALE figures? Did you know that Gwen was killed by the Green Goblin back in Amazing Spider-Man 121, in June 1973, way way before the whole “woman in a refrigorator” was coined. Or that is is a seminal moment in the comic to Peter Parker?

Every avid fan knew that Gwen Stacy was going to die to remain true to not only the comic but in how Peter Parker/Spider-Man is defined. To just casually define it the way you have just shows your ignorance to the story and that you are just a reactionist.

First and foremost, the death of Gwen Stacy supersedes the 1994 Green Lantern comic you reference as the reason that the studio shouldn’t have done it. Secondly, no one was going to applaud the death of Gwen Stacy. It was brutal, as happened in the comics, and apparently even toned down (in earlier drafts, the Goblin mocks Peter for “killing” Gwen after it happens)). This is a pivotal moment, much the way the death of Captain Stacy and death of Uncle Ben were to the character of Peter Parker and his role as a hero. Even doing the right things and trying to help, people he loves end up being hurt by Spider-Man. the subplot that could have been deleted and no original Amazing Spider-Man fans would have cried about is the Richard Parker subplot. Read some early Amazing spider-Man before you post your shitty and uninformed reviews.

It wasn’t a spoiler, I honestly figured they were going to kill her off. As a Spider-Man fan, they had no choice but to kill her off. They had to push him to the next level of his growth. To get him ready for what they are planning, which is the Sinnister Six. I would have been mad had they not killed her off.

I think the death was needed to for fill long term fans of the spiderman franchise that have followed the web crawler for years like myself.not just pleasing casual movie goers like the sam raimi before that had not payed attention to the source material. Personally I don’t think we are going to see Mary Jane anytime soon. That’s why Black Cat (Felicia Hardy) was set up so Peter can go all casual for a while a no strings relationship! With six villains spiderman won’t have much time nor be looking for love.felicia could be the superhero team mate needed to take this lot on and also be that friend with benefits. So me personally am looking forward to the new dynamic this would bring to the table.

First let me say I think you make some great points in this article. Now I think you really missed the point. This was always where we where going. Gwen’s death was not to “woman in refrigerator” her it was to serve the narrative. She was going to die because that’s what peter needed to happen. She died because he put his feelings first, he should have let her go. He should have listened to captain Stacy when he said to leave Gwen alone. Now he’s got to cash that check. The amazing spider man 3 will have a Gwen seized hole in it no doubt about that. Gwen’s death is the most important event in spider man’s history, with the exception of uncle Ben of course. It is tragic because she could have changed the scientific field if peter would have just let her go, but because he thought about himself she died.

I stand up and applaud you. It is the moment you realize that these two movies really suck when you take out the only thing good in them. I love the fact that the movies are canon… the problem is that since they suck at everything else, they rely on a 41 year old death to make the movie attractive to the fans… Movies need more creativity

Mr. Mendelson should do him, and Forbes a magazine and read the source material before offering up long-winded rants. The death of Gwen Stacy is Spider Man canon. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. Also, if this is atypical for commentary (ie, shooting one’s mouth off without considering the source) I’d suggest finding useful commentary elsewhere.

Then are you aware of how that event changed not only Spider-man but comic book history as a whole? How it helped bring about the bronze age of comics where darker story lines could be explored and how heroes could actually fail? And you just want to throw that away because it doesn’t suit your ideals about feminism. Not everything has to be about feminism. The Gwen Stacy story arc isn’t even about Gwen. It’s about failure.

Thank you, Dylan. I second your opinion…not everything needs to fit a feminist agenda. As a woman, I am finding myself repeatedly offended by “feminist this, feminist that”. If MEN make everything about their agenda, society gets its proverbial panties in a twist…but feminism? We MUST allow it. Spider-Man is about SPIDEY and his development…not about “Spidey and gf” or “Spidey and Progressive Female Counterpart.” Dylan’s theory about Gwen’s arc is dead on the money…it’s about how the hero failed. If the situation were reversed, and a female hero failed to save her man (or girlfriend, if that suits your fancy better), would there be this outcry? Doubt it.

Nope. Nope. and Nope. I’m a hardcore fan and I agree with him. When I got into comics I didn’t know who Gwen was. She is simply not mentioned in most Spidey comics, and that’s also reflected in the 90′s cartoons and the first two of Raimi’s Spidey movies. Gwen died in ASM#121 but Spider-Man was a success for all the issues before it, and remained a success after it. It’s like if they killed off Elaine from Seinfeld early on. Seinfeld is still Seinfeld, but the options are less, and it’s worse off for it. Gerry Conway ruined the comics because he killed off Peter’s LOVE, for shock value and a plot device. Fans already get those feels from Uncle Ben and Captain Stacy. The movie success of Peter/Gwen which overshadows the villains just shows how much this perpetuated mistake of killing her has painted everyone into a corner. When I saw ASM2 I enjoyed Peter/Gwen, and I thought her death/seasons/graveyard was very effective cinematic-ally, but also a mistake. I left the movie fairly unimpressed, as opposed to quite impressed by Cap A: TWS, and quite blown away by X-Men: DOFP. Comic and movie fans love Gwen, and the author nailed it with “You don’t make a sequel by taking away the very thing the audience came to see”. I’m hyped for the X-men: Apocalypse, not at all for TASM3.

And so, you think that the filmmakers should go the Rami route, and screw up the entire universe? Please. It gets old. This Spider Man series is staying at least somewhat true to the series, not taking a bunch of artistic Bullshit steps to do garbage to string along the audience.

The problem is that there are not more female-centric titles or stories, not that Gwen Stacy is killed. This story if, after all, about Spiderman, and Gwen Stacy’s death is a integral part of his character development. It is not “just so he can feel bad and seek revenge.” Why would Peter Parker continue to be Spiderman, as he must for the story to continue? He is brilliant, has a beautiful and brilliant girlfriend, and as a well rounded individual (i.e. not insane like a Bruce Wayne) could eventually forgive himself for his uncle’s death. He continues to be Spiderman because he caused (yes caused–the movie softens it) the death of the woman he loved. This is not a misogynistic trope. Gwen’s death does not make her a victim; it is Peter’s tragedy.

I cheered. I cheered though tears, but I cheered. I was so worried that sony wouldn’t have the guts to actually go through with it. Gwen’s death was one of, and in my opinion THE most important moment in comics. If they didn’t go though with it, I would have walked out VERY VERY upset. I walked out of the first Spiderman movie when they lifted the scene out of 121 and of course didn’t actually have MJ die. It felt like a slap in the face.

You should also remember that Gwen Stacy was the really the first time a major character like her was caught in the crossfire like this. Up until then, it simply was not done. This wasn’t some overused trope, it was a huge defining moment in comics. Calling it a trope is frankly, disrespectful.

WOW. After reading this article, I am truly left in a state of stunned disbelief. Mr. Mendelson, are you seriously suggesting that one of the most important, formative moments of Spidey’s life be cut out on a whim? After all, it worked so well in Spider-man 3 that it should be canon, right? Did you want to keep Uncle Ben around while you’re at it? And let’s think about it: killing Superman and Batman’s parents would result in the loss of two strong female characters. Should they stick around, too? Not Jor-El and Thomas Wayne, of course. They’re guys, so they deserve to die. Newsflash: the death of a protagonist’s significant other or parent is a common motivating factor in action stories of all kinds, no matter what sex the protagonist belongs to.

In the comic book sdly Gwen died. I hate that in that Emma Stone was a great Gwen, but that is just the way the comic went live with it. On the move very entertaining but needs to follow more closely with the comic. Fox did ok as Electra, but did not look lie the comic book version. THey should have had Harry in first Amazing Spiderman that is where Raimi’s version is so much better ditto for Rhino and his suit but otherwise not bad. Ll superheros follows a theme so know need to ever complin at that bad guy gets superhero on ropes , but good alwys manages to save day that is just how it is and tt is why people love it.

I bet you wrote an article about why it would be physically impossible to bring Bucky back to life as the Winter Soldier, and that they should have just made someone else the Winter Soldier to make it more believeable. Listen man, stick to writing articles about movies made from Nicholas Sparks books or Adam Sandler movies. Stop trying to put your two cents into a realm you clearly do not understand. People who have been comic fans for years have certain expectations (like sentinals that would be a lot bigger than how they look in the new X-men movie which is why it should bomb) of these story lines coming to life. If you write a movie based off a novel, would you change the complete outcome and risk the story line to do what you you considered the correct creative decision? Lets do The Count of Monte Cristo, but instead, the count dies in the end. That would be good, right? For artistic reasons? NO! Because people expect it to end a certain way! Just like they knew Gwen would die!

While I appreciate your view on the way women characters are portrayed in the entertainment industry now a days, I really disagree with you when it comes to this discussion. Gwen Stacy was always meant to die with in the Spider-man Universe, plain and simple. Along with the death of his Uncle Ben this event in Peter’s life is what makes the character who he is and in turn really progresses him as a hero. This film is called “The Amazing Spider-Man 2″ not “The Amazing Gwen Stacy”. Emma Stone played the role so well and yes I will truly miss her in the upcoming third chapter of this franchise, but that is 2 years away. Saying that part 3 will be a flop due to this “plot twist” is really too soon. One thing I was surprised you never mention was the role Sallie Field played as Aunt May, along with Emma Stone I truly felt her chemistry with Andrew was just as great. The way the film portrayed her version of Aunt May going to night school, wanting to provide for Peter’s education and overall well being, was amazing and a huge step up from where the original Aunt May character was over 40 years ago. All in all, while I enjoyed Emma and Andrew’s quirky banter towards each other, the fact that she died was warrented and very expected because that event will forever change Peter’s outlook on how precious life and his responsibility is to protect not only the innocent by stander but the people he cares for most.

This post is full of feminist talking points but it doesn’t reflect what the death of Gwen Stacy truly meant for comics. Gwen did die to make Peter sad, but it was more than that. The Night Gwen Stacy Died was long before “woman in refrigerators” became a problem in comics. Before this event you didn’t kill off major characters like that. Comics where in their childhood still. Comics had just recently gained the right to talk about drugs, another win by Spider-Man. Issue 121 of Spider-man killed this innocence and introduced comic readers to the bronze age of comic which would be full of darker heroes and anti-heroes. It was many peoples first encounter with the pain of death and it changed the Spider-Man comics forever. There is a reason why readers still talk about Gwen Stacy despite being dead for four decades now. To not kill her would rob the movies of one of the most important events in spider-man history and imo it would be worse than not killing Uncle Ben.

To address your comments that this will be harmful to sales: Do you not think that was also a fear in the comics? In fact it was worse for the comics. Fans were venomous about this for decades yet it still stands as one of the best story choices that the series had made.

Now with that said its positively stupid that you try to make it look sexist to kill her off. Ruining relationships and injuring and/or killing romantic partners of superheroes is a theme that happens for BOTH sexes. You say it happening more often to women because there are more male heroes, but it happens in the stories with female superheroes too. Furthermore, lets just count the major deaths in Amazing Spider-man so far: Uncle Ben, Captain Stacy, Gwen Stacy. 2 males vs 1 female…. So harming 50% LESS women is sexist?

Quite frankly I think you know factoids about what happened but I don’t think you truly understand what it was about and why it was so important. This article ignores the context of the story from the 70′s in favor of talking about it in today’s context of feminism talking points.

I respect everyone’s opinion and honestly have never commented on a review, but feel that this article is in fact slanted towards an overly feminist point of view. A major theme in literature for centuries has been loss and tragedy for the protagonist, but it works both ways. The article references numerous times a male protagonist lost his female significant other, but the same can be said for female protagonists. Sydney in Alias loses her fiancee in the first episode, which sparks the series and starts her journey for truth. Perhaps we call this the “man in bathtub” trope. Olivia from Fringe also loses her lover in the pilot episode, which in turn sparks her journey into the world of Fringe science. If Lost is being referenced, let’s not forget that Eloise Hawking was forced to kill her own son, and if we want another “man in bathtub” trope, we have Claire losing Charlie. I agree that there are many more examples of male protagonists loved ones being murdered or killed, but it should be taken into consideration that about 85% of lead characters in TV and movies are male. Behind the camera, only about 15% of writers are female. Writers write what they know, and create characters they can relate with so they seem real and true. So really, what we’re talking about is the lack of female writers in Film and TV, which is a much larger issue. I agree that since females comprise 50% of the population in the US, they should be represented more than just 15% in Film and TV. However, this is a problem handed down to us generations ago, and change happens gradually, not overnight. The fact that this was an existing character also means that this isn’t even a part of the gender inequality issue as they’re not adding to the problem, just retelling an existing story. If we’re criticizing loss and tragedy as a literary device, then let’s also criticize Shakespeare. The writers of Spider-Man 2 chose not to rewrite Spidey’s history, perhaps because they didn’t want to alienate fans or perhaps they couldn’t think of a more creative alternative. Either way, Gwen was more than just the silent girlfriend. She experiences loss herself, and is more essential in the film than in the old comics as she bravely helps stop Electro instead of being the Green Goblins kidnap victim. There’s also the fact that in the comics Gwen was resurrected (through cloning) about two years later, which shouldn’t be ruled out for one of the sequels, although it’s unlikely. If the writer’s truly were sexist, they wouldn’t have made her strong and brave, they would have made her the dumb girlfriend that got killed. If viewers don’t want to see a “woman in refrigerator” or “man in bathtub”, then they should stick with Disney movies. Otherwise they go into the theatres knowing that the protagonist, whether male or female, could have their significant other killed. Did I think the movie was the best movie I’ve seen in awhile? No. I do think that it’s not fair to judge it sexist because the protagonist lost his girlfriend. As someone that also writes as part of his job, I do feel this article could’ve been more evenly slanted.

Funny. Gwen Stacy was in Spiderman comics for – what? 90 issues? In other words there was no reason she had to die at all since they could have had all the stories take place before she died. But no, we need her death, we cry out for it. To “be true to the comics” and “how it changes Spiderman.” However, the chemistry between the two leads was the only positive aspect of these movies and now it is DONE. Which means the next Spiderman 3 should be worse than the last Spiderman 3. Actually, all the current Spiderman movies have been worse than their last counterparts…

I’ve read the comics there were no other good Gwen stories besides the death of her, her dad, and her blaming spider-man for her fathers death. Her dad died and she didn’t blame spider-man, which means going only by the comics her only story left was to die. If she didn’t die then she’d they’d not be telling stories from the comics.

I guess if they really wanted they could bring her back via a clone saga movie, but that is a very hated period in the comics. I don’t know if they’d ever risk it.

This reads like its written by someone who never read or has no knowledge of what transpires in the comics, but obviously the writer knows. So why all the Spider bashing? This comic book movie, used a story arc, from the comic book. AS IT SHOULD. Its a comic book movie. I know theres plenty of artistic liberties granted so they can do whatever they want (e.g. Harry Osborne was the 1st Goblin, as opposed to Norman in the comics… and it was Norman who killed Gwen, not Harry) But the fact remains. Gwen dies in the comics at the hands of the Green Goblin. So in the movie they killed her at the hands of the green goblin. This was the ONLY part of the movie I didnt have a problem with since it was bound to happen at one point. Why drag it out? Worse things to write about : Electro’s gapped teeth getting fixed by electricity; Peter referring to Harry as his best friend after not talking since they were 8, and having 2, 4 minute conversations; too many villans; Electro and Goblin becoming “instantly” exponentially evil with no fundamental or realistic reason why… they just felt like killing everyone suddenly; Peter Parker being far too cocky… Peter was never had an EXTREMELY bloated ego in the comics; Electro’s rubber de-materializing suit…. where did he get it, how does his suit travel with him as he turns into electricity??; Norman Osborne dying decades after developing symptoms, Harry being afflicted within hours; No JJ Jameson?? the only reference to him was an email reply that simply says “WRONG!!!” why not cast the guy?, oh yeah there were already 71 characters to keep track of; end of ASM1 Peter cant date Gwen for her own protection; beginning of ASM2, thatr ideas gone out the window and their dating heavily, only to go back to what they thought of at the end of the last movie, its too dangerous; drastic (and much better) suit design, at least explain it, its obviously EXTREMELY different than the suit he just had

I don’t think the women in refrigerator ploy applies here because this death may be the reason it all started in the first place. And the movie is called The Amazing Spiderman not Spiderman and Gwen Stacey so it is about how death affects him. his uncle dying in the comics is his reason for fighting crime in the first movie, this death of Stacey is senseless and unexpected which I think is the point in the movie and the comic. And don’t forget Mary Jane is a strong female character or is she not good enough because she is just a wannabe actress.

All of those people saying that Gwen Stacy had to die because she died in the comics should also insist that the next movie reveal what happened with the twin children that Gwen had after having consensual sex with “Green Goblin” Norman Osborn and gave birth to in France while she was upset at knowing that Peter had let her father get killed… because that all happened in the comics, too.

My point, of course, is that claiming that something had to happen in the movies because it happened in the comics is ludicrous because the two are in TWO SEPARATE UNIVERSES.

While I agree that it wasn’t executed as well as it could have been, and probably should have been saved for a later film, I believe that it was the right call. Gwen Stacey’s defining characteristic is her death. It’s what i have been waiting for since she was announced a few years back. I greatly enjoyed the scene itself, but I think what ruined it was rushing it into he end of this movie. And with no setup. Norman murdering Gwen was the result of years of conflict. This was just an impulse move by an angry kid.

The real problem with this film is not that Gwen died. The problem is that Marc Webb’s vision of Spider-Man should never have been put on screen. Webb doesn’t understand Peter Parker, he doesn’t understand Peter’s mythos, and he certainly doesn’t understand who or what Gwen Stacy signified in the mythos. I really, really wish Webb would leave the franchise before he inevitably botches Mary Jane Watson as well.

In addition, while I applaud the sentiment of the article, it’s misplaced when applied to this film/character. Gwen Stacy is not a woman in a refrigerator. She’s a “Lost Lenore,” a character who has just as much (if not more) importance in death than she did in life (look it up on TVTropes.com).

The reason why “women in refrigerators” causes outrage is because the female characters are often murdered, raped, depowered, etc solely to shock the hero/reader. It’s gratuitous, and usually presented in a sexualized and/or fetishized manner.

However, this doesn’t mean that female characters can never die or that the death of a loved one can never be used as character motivation. Far from it. And female readers and comic creators would be the first to tell you this.

I haven’t seen the film, and I don’t plan to encourage Sony to continue to hire Webb by paying money for it. I can easily wait until it streams on Netflix. So perhaps Webb does make Gwen’s death in the film feel gratuitous and generic – I wouldn’t put it past him. But in the comics Gwen becomes even more important and three-dimensional than she ever was alive (there’s a reason why Webb had to give Gwen many of Mary Jane’s characteristics, including MJ’s knowledge and support of Peter’s identity. The comic Gwen never knew Peter was Spider-Man. In fact, she was rather boring and one-note).

This is what you get when a twilight fan critiques comic book movies. To complain about a how a superhero’s girlfriend is always getting attacked or killed by villains is like complaining about how people in these movies always have super human powers, or how the hero is always saving someone, or how there is always so much violence in these stories. That’s what the genre is. It’s like crying about how romance movies always end up with people falling in love, or how in horror movies something scary always happens. The best part is how he acts like its an attack on females, yet male characters were also killed in the previous movie (gwens dad…) – was that an attack on males? Gwen did plenty of heroic things during the first two movies, and she died for it in this movie, mostly because she’s not a superhero. And the death is hardly pointless when it will clearly effect the MAIN character, spiderman. I highlight the word MAIN character because captain critique was likening gwen stacy to han solo, jack sparrow, optimus prime, etc. HINT: This movie wasn’t called The Amazing Gwen Stacy. Having said that, there are many female superheroes – but not nearly as many as male, but that’s because over the years the target audience was almost entirely male. That’s been slowly changing, but the situation is not a reflection of comics, it’s a reflection of our society that shows up in comics.

I understand the reason a lot of viewers were upset to see this happen, but I think it’s worth noting that — IMO — the main point of *what happened* was not really about Peter’s reaction, it was about fulfilling that character’s primary message and sentiment throughout the story.

Usually supporting characters get turned into unwilling pawns, victims, etc entirely apart from their own actions and intentions. A recurring theme in Spider-Man’s life is that he constantly causes those around him pain and suffering, either intentionally or unintentionally. His responsibility to be Spider-Man inherently leads to his enemies targeting those he loves, and it is usually portrayed as the villains seeking those people out at home or work, grabbing them by surprise, and then abusing them until Spidey shows up to save the day. He then gets to apologize and make amends to redeem himself.

The portrayal of Gwen in these films, however, has been to show that she isn’t a casual bystander. Peter tries to make her into one, and she chastises him for it. He doesn’t get to be the one to put himself in danger and then watch innocent bystanders suffer while he feels bad for not saving them — look at how not only Gwen but the little boy is also someone refusing to be a bystander and to instead step up and try to help, too.

I feel the entire point is that Gwen was NOT going to die this time just as some helpless bystander girlfriend, she could’ve stayed safe and sound away from the threats, but she refused to do so and said “I’m willing to risk my life to fight villains, too, and nobody will sideline me as the helpless girlfriend. If I risk myself and die, it’s as a willing player in the battle.” Peter has to accept the fact that he’s not the only one who gets to run around talking about responsibility to use whatever power or abilities you have to help others and do the right thing. Gwen did the same thing in the previous film, remember, so this isn’t some convenient notion just tossed in conveniently for the purpose of excusing her death this time around. In the last movie, she insists on going to the lab to make the antidote, and she stays when the threat arrives. But when there’s NOT really anything more that she can do and her presence could just put her in danger or be a problem for others, she recognizes she’s done her part and lets others do theirs. She doesn’t tell Peter not to go, in either film. And she expects the same acceptance from him when it comes to her own choices to help and fight.

Through this newest film, she several times steps up and gets involved to try to help. Peter keeps trying to get her to stop, and she won’t, not any more than he would stop. She’s willing to take the risk and willing to die, as much as he is.

In most superhero films, love interests don’t die. Gwen is joined by Rachel from Batman, Kayla from Wolverine’s “Origins” film, and Lois Lane (briefly) from Donner’s very first Superman movie, which spans from 1978 to today — 36 years. The only other examples I can think of — Elektra in “Daredevil” and Jean in “X2″ — were actually female superhero characters of their own, so I don’t feel it’s really fair to add them as if they were just girlfriends being used as death-props. Out of the dozens of superhero films over the last many decades, usually it’s the parents or parental-mentor figures who are most often used as death-props to serve the purpose of motivating superheroes, it seems to me.

Anyway, I think Gwen’s death could’ve been avoided or at least postponed, but on the other hand this movie really had some strong themes about the choices people make and the importance of facing and accepting consequences of those choices. Peter’s parents, Aunt May, Norman Osborn, Electro, Gwen, Harry, and Peter himself all wrestle with choices about their own lives and the lives of others. Everybody in some respect makes life and death choices in this film — Aunt May’s is arguably the list literally imminently life-or-death, I guess, although the callback to her choice to adopt Peter as her own boy to save him from whatever his parents were doing, and her later choice about being a nurse, are both portrayed in vaguely life-and-death ways. Gwen dying reflects not just her own choices, but also Peter’s and Harry’s, and all in different ways. It’s a complicated situation, and I don’t think she merely lived so she could die and give Peter a sad montage in a film. I think her life and death were all about the idea that the popular “with power comes responsibility” theme applies to everyone, and that Spider-Man isn’t the only one making choices to take risks for what is right and wrong, and sometimes the price of those choices will indeed be death — as it was for Gwen, for Peter’s parents, for Norman (so far, anyway…), and for Electro. And likewise, so it was for Uncle Ben — a point a lot of people forget.

It’s not really likely that Spider-Man himself will die in his movies to make the point about the consequences of choice, and it wouldn’t be realistic of us to expect it. But it’s also not realistic for filmmakers to expect us to accept films where time and again only the villains and bad guys die (usually in some convenient way that lets the hero halfway pretend to have “clean hands” and not directly have intentionally killed the villain), while the hero and all his loved ones get away in the nick of time over and over. That’s how it usually happens in the vast majority of these films — be it superhero films or just typical action movies. So if this series is letting characters have more important arcs to represent more important themes, and letting them be more than bystanders used as convenient victim props, then I’m okay with that and I think Gwen’s death is part of a larger tapestry of tragic consequences and choices that exist in this new Spidey series. That Peter learns something about life and death and choice from Gwen’s life and death and choices isn’t to me the only thing her character represented or was used for. Again, I understand the concerns about the broader concept, but I feel it was done very differently here and isn’t necessarily as common as it might seem.

It’s regrettable that fans cannot express disagreement and views without resorting to hostile insults and resentment that someone writes an article with a different opinion than their own.

Scott’s article, whether you agree with his views or not, is thoughtful and informed, and raises serious issues that have been problematic in comics and film for a long time. He is aware of the comics source material, but he just happens to think that adhering strictly to it in this particular instance was a mistake and wasn’t done properly in his opinion.

How many fans will argue here that the movies need to include all the clone stuff from the comics, too, just to be sure to mirror the comic stories? Adaptation is about picking what is best and finding ways to translate that into a film that works, and sometimes changes happen while other times direct translation works best.

I completely understand the argument that the series could’ve deviated from the comics with Gwen’s fate and kept her around, at least sending her to London and letting the question of her ultimate fate remain unresolved for now. I personally think the film did it well, and I’ve made my own argument in defense of the film’s choices. But I managed to do so without aggressively bashing the author and hurling insults at him. Behaving aggressively mean and rude only gives the appearance of lacking any substantive reasoning and thus having to resort to simple angry resentment that someone made a coherent point you don’t like. This lower level of discourse is all too common already on other fan sites, and it’s a shame to see it infecting the discussion here as well.

No, the actual trope is for critics to point out iconic story moments and dismiss them as cliches and tropes. When this story was originally published, it wasn’t a cliche. Writers boo-hoo’ing about political correctness is. Just saying….

Yes, preestablished story moments that are pivotal points of character development should totally change in order to fulfill goals of social justice and equality. What better way could you do it, create a 100% original story? Nah, that’s way too hard.

I agree that it’s disappointing that Emma Stone won’t be in the next installment, but I disagree with most of the rest of what you wrote.

Yes, it’s true that Gwen Stacy’s life is “meaningless” outside of her impact on Spiderman, but so was Uncle Ben’s. So was Peter’s parents. So is Harry’s for that matter and Electro’s. The movie is called Spiderman. Every single character only exists to further Peter Parker’s character arc. Uncle Ben literally exists for Peter to “have a sad” and seek vengeance. I assume you had no problem with his death.

Further, I think killing a beloved character amps up the emotional stakes. Instead of being one of those movies where despite the “danger” you know the hero is going to save the day just in the nick of time, now you’re not quite sure. If Aunt May gets threatened will the audience be *sure* that Peter will save her?

Secondly, one of Peter’s on going dilemma’s about being Spiderman is that those he cares about may be put in danger. The very thing that Captain Stacy warned him about and Peter struggles with throughout the movie. As of the second film Aunt May and Gwen Stacy are basically the only two people in the world that he really cares about. The series would be less powerful if that message really didn’t hit home in a meaningful way. The audience wouldn’t really believe that Peter has to sacrifice to be spider-man. i guess they could have given Peter a male best friend to accomplish the same task, but I fail to see how that would be ‘better’ than have Gwen Stacy die.

Lastly, while not having Gwen for future installments harms the future installments, I feel it made this current movie better. One of your criticisms of the current move seems to be the degree to which they are setting up the future ones. So one hand you seem to be saying they shouldn’t have spent so much energy on planting seeds for the future movies at the expense of the current one, but at the same time they shouldn’t have included the most powerful scene in the current movie because they should have been thinking about future sequels, well which is it?

The story of Spider-Man is primarily a story about Peter Parker, not Gwen Stacy or any of the other female (or male) characters. What do you expect? That just to be politically correct that any story that includes the death of a female should be re-written so that the female has “more of a role”? I get your point, but the story is about Peter, not about Gwen. So obviously the death of Gwen is going to serve to make Peter sad and shape his story. All the other movies and stories you mentioned…same deal. There’s plenty of books and stories and movies with female lead characters who experience the death of a male character, which only serves to shape her journey and story. Try looking into some of that if that interests you..

They go out of there way in these movies to avoid the Damsel in distress concept. The very idea that Gwen was a scientist like Peter was stupid and undercuts what made their relationship interesting. The whole idea was no one could understand what the cheerleader and popular girl that the Peter Parker helped with her homework, would like the super nerdy protagonist.

In the early days, Peter himself found it hard to except that Gwen actually liked him for who he was. In the movie, why wouldn’t two attractive people who both love science not hook up? It was inevitable and not the least bit interesting.

Gwen liking Peter also fueled the enmity that star football layer Flash Thompson had against Peter in high school because he felt he should have been dating Gwen. They made sure to tell you that Gwen was smarter than Peter which is ridiculous and pandering. She is first in their class and reminds him every chance she gets. Gwen not Peter figures out how to make his web shooters electricity proof–Gwen saves his life when he’s fighting Electro. Yet he cannot save her.

This is what they do in these films now–the women always saves the hero in these films, witness Iron Man 3 with Pepper saving the day, Or even Green Lantern where Carol Ferris saves the Lantern…There are several examples of this, so this is a load of crap. Much like TASM2. That they pander to an audience unfamiliar with the material is exactly why these movies are so often bad films in spite of their successes.

This is one of the very most concise, accurate and well-reasoned responses I have ever read about the overall ridiculousness of the “PC malignancy” that has spread throughout mainstream presentations of traditional super-hero materials, and sadly, the more modern versions of said comic books.

Yes, pandering…but it’s worse. I believe truly that the silent majority of well-thinking superhero movie viewers recognize this but are (1) unable to be as eloquent and precise as Hassan, and (2) would be fearful of PC-backlash.

There is nothing in the world wrong with a “damsel in distress” in superhero films…it’s preferable, in fact, to a large extent.

To give some proof to the existence of the “anti-[hetero]male backlash” from writers and much of the Hollywood movie industry, I give you a scenario and ask all readers here to be honest in their best guess: If a Wonder Woman is ever made, in which the Steve Trevor character is part, I wonder how often and to what extent WW will be saved by Steve? I am sure the film will make it abundantly clear that Steve Trevor is smarter and more resourceful than WW; I am sure he will be the keystone to solving a key stopping point for WW saving the day…right (Words thoroughly basted in sarcasm.)?

I don’t really feel like using Jack Sparrow or Optimus Prime as examples is really justified. They are, in fact, the main character for their respective movies. Han Solo is a large stretch, at that, but I suppose is viable enough.

And beside, you *can* make a sequel by taking away the thing that audiences like. Look at Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. Unless you knew, exactly, that Spock was transferring his Katra to Bones, as far as audiences knew, Spock was killed off in a heroic sacrifice, and then a whole sequel was made to bring him back.

Not to mention, by the end of the movie, Peter seems pretty “Come to terms” with himself in terms of Gwens death, so it’s not even fair then to say that the sequels would be based off of it. Beside, if you wanted to argue character death, you could say that they shouldn’t have killed off his Uncle this time around.

I agree with almost everything you have said, and your analysis of the female character providing male heroes with a moral or emotional imperative was very accurate. However, your approach to it was a tad flawed.

I would like to point out the ‘culture’ of superhero movies in the past as the reason “artistic license” was taken in this instance. Since the Blade movie brought superhero stories to the mainstream and the corporate culture of giants like Sony, they have to continually endure the nagging of the hardcore, almost militant subculture of comic book fans for often going “off script” and taking liberties with beloved characters to act, talk, or align themselves in non-canon ways.

Every time a movie comes out and the silver screen adaptation is not to the liking of the culture that built the internet hype, the corporate sales, or the general interest in the production of that movie, waves upon waves of fans box up old memorabilia, lanes of comic books and shelves of action figures. I’ve seen it happen with my own eyes. There is a reason why “Batman Begins” in 2005 took so long to get to theatres; everyone who still cared, or had an invested interest was still trying to forget the last failed endeavour that shall not be named.

Gwen Stacy HAD to die, simply put. For Marc Webb, or Sony to delineate from the canon would as assuredly guarantee a ‘reboot’ a decade from now as all the past failures of the last trilogy ensured THIS reboot. If a story gets told right, the fans ensure that the same actors get to play the same characters for another movie in the same arc, without reboot fears that now plague Fantastic 4 (surely you’ve heard of the fan backlash of an African American Human Torch who will somehow be the blood brother to a Caucasian Invisible Woman).

It wasn’t a crime against women, or an artistic failure; it was the biggest attempt in Spiderman 2 to stay as true as possible to what actually happened in #121. Your “women in refrigerators” quip is misapplied. You state a phenomenon that was coined in 1999 to reference an isolated DC’s Green Lantern plot from 1994 to be used to explain a tragic and at-the-time shocking development for Marvel’s death of Gwen Stacy 21 years before the refrigerator incident. It’s easy to look at a plot twist from 40 years ago and criticize it today, but ASM2 is serving as a sequel to a franchise wide reboot. You have to tell the story from the beginning, and Gwen Stacy DOES die. I loved the character, but she wasn’t the end all and be all of the Spiderman ethos; MJ is. Gwen set the foundation for the insecurities, the hope, and the drive in Peter to protect the ones he loves, and it taught him a valuable lesson echoing the one that the death of Ben taught him: “with great power comes great responsibility”.

All of that aside, ASM3′s biggest hurdle will be screen time being equally divvied up among the Sinister 6, Alistair Smythe AKA Spider Slayer, Felicia Hardy AKA the Black Cat, a grieving and wounded Peter Parker, a newly introduced Mary Jane Watson, a potentially revived Electro (as any basic science would teach us that you can’t destroy energy, you can only transform or relocate it) the prisoners of Ravencroft and the shadowy figure bringing all of these players together.

Your article was fantastic, just thought some perspective about ASM2 beyond itself was warranted to explain some of your misgivings.

This review is spot on and frankly what I needed to read. Gwen and Peter’s relationship is the dynamism of the film, the director must be blind, deaf and dumb not to see this. SpIder man has crummy villians ( Kraven, Mysterio, The Vulture and the like) taken collectively they simply are not the movers and shakers of the villain world- they simply can’t be trusted. Gwen dies in a manner and method that makes perfect sense in the Real World, however that’s not where Spider man lives. During the chase of the tow truck we see this tow truck moving very fast and smashing into the side of a city bus, Spider Man stops the bus’ momentum and saves the pedestrians who would have been hit by the bus. Now we all know a huge truck at high speed would devastate a bus and many people would have been killed. Why suspend real world physics here but inflict it upon Gwen. In comic books characters don’t die when Spider Man saves them from hitting the ground, did Superman ever snap anyone’s neck when saving them from a fall? Ending the movie with a battle against the Rhino, this is an awful idea that falls so completely short. Walking out the the movie I couldn’t believe a professional writer could even conceive of an out-of-proportion, dipshit ending for the movie- that plus the thought, “Why the hell would anyone come back for a third movie”

Okay you are an idiot. I cannot believe forbes pays you any money so you can rant about political or social afflictions in our society. You were suppose to focus on the actual film’s material not give us your personal insight of how it affects society. Instead, you waste time and money, writing this irrelevant speech about content in the film. Perhaps, its there that’s fine, but that is irrelevant talk about the films character development, atmosphere, you know the actual film you were suppose to “address”. Instead what are we given, a personal critique on what the film meant.

Wow, sir you deserve to parodied on Family Guy, so exploit irrelevant “Ranters” whom use the media to complain about their closet personal feelings regarding society. Forbes must enjoy giving money away. It bothers me that anyone would pay any of you “contributors” to contribute nothing, to bombardment verbal nonsense upon us.

As a regular viewer, not really the professor of the marvel universe, i find it hard to believe that a well developed and loved character like Gwen Stacy is “put on a refrigerator” as what comic fans would’ve put it. Regardless of it being true and relevant on what happened in the comics decades ago, the concept of death among the dearest of the heroes is very cliche. repeating it on a wide screen isn’t hardly a shock. But with Gwen’s demise, its a different story. I think what makes SM 2 differs is that the movie was presented in a very light, warm and positive atmosphere. that everything is sunny and bright. Even though Spidey is being piled up with problems, Garfield’s take on the character is very candid and easy, as light as his backpack. Since this is what is happening almost to the entire of the movie, the sudden death of Gwen didn’t just add up to the story. This is more tragic than any of the character, including Uncle Ben’s. Another sentiment is – why ruin a good romance with a death! There are many argument as to why should Gwen stay alive but I think the director, producers and writers have succeeded in making the movie notable and relevant. Now more people will be watching SM 3 even those who confessed that they are finished with the franchise.

I liked the twist. I didn’t know that the comics killed her off in the 70s. Forget that for a moment. Forget the cultural implications that you’re calling on. What I see is a great character – Gwen Stacy was, in this movie, a very strong character. I simply enjoyed her so much. I enjoyed her potential, her charisma, and her bravery. The thing I always asked my mother when watching movies was; why the women are so useless. Movies in general portray women as being more a liability than an asset. Gwen was the contrary. In both movies, without her helping Peter he would have failed. My point is she did everything right and still died. In LIFE that happens. Sometimes you do absolutely everything humanly possible and you do it right. That doesn’t mean you won’t lose everything and when Peter did, I didn’t want him to get back up, I was angry for him. I wanted him to just give up… as you want to sometimes. But he got back up… I do agree that her death made it feel like he was living Invictus, but you can’t look at Gwen as a means to an end, which is a more badass Spidey. The fact is she didn’t die for Peter to develop more as a character; she died to send an emotional message to all of us: “I know that we all think we’re immortal, we’re supposed to feel that way, we’re graduating. The future is and should be bright, but, like our brief four years in high school, what makes life valuable is that it doesn’t last forever, what makes it precious is that it ends. I know that now more than ever. And I say it today of all days to remind us that time is luck. So don’t waste it living someone else’s life, make yours count for something. Fight for what matters to you, no matter what. Because even if you fall short, what better way is there to live?” She lives up completely to her speech and sends that message home. It’s not about being sexist or killing off women to prove that Peter was right by telling her to stay out of it. It was completely about that message to me, they felt they had to stay true to the comic and they found a poetic and meaningful way to do it.

You make comic book movies for the comic book fan – period end of discussion. You do not deviate because you may hurt the feelings of some over analytical types who read into things entirely too much. What you are doing is simply making a non issue an issue. The bottom line is if you actually read the comics as you claim you do you would see your entire post is completely and utterly pointless. You do not “change” what is essentially biblical information in regards to comics and Spiderman for nearly 50 years because you think it will “turn off young female viewers”. There are other movies those characters could be created in, in this instance Gwen Stacy is not one of them, as her character dies. She is supposed to die. That is part of what makes Spider man, who he is, and drives home the point about his powers creating responsibility and helps create the fabric of his morally conflicted character. The story is about Spider Man being fallible, and his failure to protect those he loves. It drives home his failure to protect Uncle Ben, it is that grief and that sense of failure that drives Spider Man to be who he is.

This article is overzealous trash trying to creating something out of nothing.

I became a Spiderman fanatic after I got very ill with a terminal condition and after I have gone through a rough patch with losing 20 loved ones in a short period of time. I am not telling you all this because I want you to pitty me, if fact I am telling you this because I want you to see why Spiderman is my hero. While fictional he has gotten me through some of my darkest days, and I believe it is because we has suffered some similar situations. I have made a massive connection with a fictional character but I think that TASM has really made the story of Peter Parker that much better and I believe Andrew Garfield has taken Peter’s character to the next level. I am an avid comic reader, with Spiderman being my absolute favorite! I loved this movie and I loved the first Amazing Spiderman, I hated with a passion that Gwen died but I also know that it is a pivitol moment in Peter’s life and I am happy that this movie stayed fairly true to the comics, fairly being the key word. I do get raped up in scribts like this as well as stories like Gwen and Peter’s. I have always believed Gwen was Peter’s greatest love and nothing will compare to their love…not even MJ…sorry MJ fans (don’t get me wrong I love her too) I felt that is movie did a great job developing their relationship while tragic her death is a necissary and grand part of Peter’s life. For anyone who has ever lost a loved one it is difficult to see someone who can be on top of the world go through such heartbreak. I applaud Emma Stone, Andrew Garfield, Dane Dehaan, Jamie FOx, aStan Lee, and Marc Webb for making such an amazing movie and an amazing story.

I know her death was supposed to happen….but it seriously took me as a shock. I’m a big fan of spiderman and I’ve really loved the Amazing spiderman movies over the previous set no doubt. I hope the directors will make up for the loss in the 3rd movie…

Interesting opinion. If I didn’t know better, I’d say you were trying to have your cake and eat it too: women should be empowered, but they shouldn’t face any of the risk that comes with that. Because that’s a large measure of what it means to be “masculine” – taking risks. It’s fine that women are seeking opportunities for themselves as well, but many seems to be surprised that there is a price to pay. Gwen gets a ton of applause for saying “I get to choose”, but then you blame the writers because that choice leads to her death? If you are going to give Gwen credit for standing up for herself, shouldn’t you also give her credit for realizing that she put herself in danger?

How about if we looks at another tiresome trope of comics and the movies. I’d like to see you write an article about this: when was the last time we saw a female put herself in danger for a man? For a child, sure, but if women really want equal footing with men, then what is holding them back? It’s always the guy who is willing to die for the sake of his wife/girlfriend and her child (and sometimes the child isn’t even his). Men are still expendable. Women want all of the advantages that men have had, but they are still unwilling to pay the price.

Scott I’m a huge Spider-Man fan and you’ve nailed it exactly. Mortality can be excellent for comics/movies/shows(especially The Walking Dead), but Gwen’s death has been a perpetuated mistake for decades… especially since there have been many other deaths including Uncle Ben and Captain Stacy. Nobody has dared to change this, so everyone keeps painting themselves into a corner. Peter/Gwen were the main strength in TASM2, and losing that dynamic is especially discouraging for the success of sequels considering the lackluster villains.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Adhering to a story that was so interesting in its time was completely ill-timed in this story. What Webb and all others who wanted to do a “Death of Gwen Stacy” story forget is context. Until Gwen died in the comics, she was a 2D, snobby brat of a girl that made Peter run in circles while she sobbed into a pillow. She wasn’t fleshed out, and typically added NOTHING to the story. Her death was purely meaningful in the way Peter reacted, not in the depth of her character. This film elegantly and brilliantly convinced you to love these characters and their coupling. Wasting the amazing chemistry Garfield and Stone had was tremendously dumb. These films must be FUN first and foremost. Watching Stone in Spider-Man was fun; Ending a great action film with an intense sense of loss? NOT FUN.

dont think sony should make any more movies of spiderman becouse it makes no sence for kids and girls to see a super heros girlfriend die after saving the day i personaly and lots of other who have seen the amazing spiderman 2 dont care if they male the 3rd part of the movie ..unless SONY finds a way to make her come back to life …for example it could be that the funaral they were in was electros funaral or that she is frozen some where and comes back to life ..other wise dont boder making the 3rd part

Dear idiot boxes: Gwen dies VERY EARLY in the Spider Man universe. To allow her to keep living would have been a poor way of continuing a story arc that would not have made sense to the growth of Spider Man. Spider Man is the classic hero who doesn’t get what he strives for, which is a happy life. He only finds his happiness in slinging and fighting as time goes on, even when he is with Mary Jane, who will eventually die in some way, as well. His family dies, everyone close to him dies.

Gwen Stacy’s death stayed true to the original comics, and IMO that’s not a bad thing. That’s why comics have maintained popularity for many years and continue to grow in popularity, because the source stories are so rich. Of course there are multitudes of stories that could be told, but there’s only so much you can put into a movie. They chose to include a hard to accept, but very important plot point in this movie. It added so much impact to the movie, and showed that spiderman cannot always save the day, and that its not guaranteed that everything will always be okay. Further I think the movie did a great job of portraying the scene – both beautifully and tragically filmed.

I’ve been wandering around the internet to find an article that would list the various wrongs with portraying the death of Gwen Stacy in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Mr. Mendelson’s article takes the crown.

First and foremost: You don’t kill a character which has so deeply or profoundly grown on your audience, and has become their beloved character.

Sure you can twist, turn or even break them to garner sympathy from the audience, but killing such a character with the brutality posed in this movie is appalling. I mean just seeing Gwen Stacy’s whole body snapping on Spidey’s web was shocking. If i pickup that comic and read it, yes i will be affected but not to such an extent because at the end of the day, it’s just a printed comic.

But seeing that on screen with real humans is a different story, because i’m sure the audience including myself were very happy with the way their relationship was going. Now when i look at it, all the events in the movie are like a ground building of the final event of killing Gwen Stacy. The romance, the constant vision of Stacy’s father seen by Spidey, her silent smile when she sees the big ‘I love you’ on the bridge, the director surely brought the audience really close to Spidey and Stacy and then shattered the whole image in one small scene. That’s a substandard way of showing an event with ‘shock value’.

Then Peter Parker’s grieving period is just awkward and small. If your goal is to give Spidey a reason to be affected emotionally to come back stronger, you need to at least hang the story a little. Just like Christopher Nolan did with Batman, he (Batman) sees everything he ever fought for falling apart, he escapes into grieving, disappears, and Nolan ends TDK on that scene. But in this movie, Gwen Stacy is killed, then a couple of scenes where Spidey is standing near her grave with seasons changing, then on one small talk by Aunt May and he’s back on the streets to fight Rhino.

Poorly done.

I can tell you now that most of the audience is not willing to see The Amazing Spider Man 3 just to look at Mary Jane Watson popping up in it.

The two female characters on Lost were not killed to “make their boyfriends feel bad” their characters got killed because the actresses were constantly getting arrested (Dec 1st 2005) and postponing production for weeks at a time They were “killed” (May 3rd 2006 after a long hiatus) the same happened with Male actor Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, He got arrested for driving without a license and resisting the police (Sept 2006) his character was killed shortly after (Nov 2006). Those three were rush killed with no real storyline because they were no longer an asset to have on set. It was around that time I stopped watching because I felt there was no point if they’d keep having 14-18 day hiatuses, I waited for the complete DVD set.

I have to admit, while I knew Gwen Stacey was on her way out I really hoped that they would tell a different story this time around. Both Amazing Spiderman’s were okay but the chemistry between Garfield and Emma Stone made their on-screen romance the best part of the Spiderman movies. For once, I didn’t dislike the “girl” in the superheroes life like I did in the Dark Knight movies, and I didn’t find her as irrelevant as in the Iron Man movies (Sorry Pepper)

I’m genuinely bummed about this; there’s no way they can realistically make me like a Mary Jane and so I do hope she never enters the frame. Either kill off this spidey in the next movie and start over OR do some comic book magic and find a way to resurrect Gwen.